384 



Ora Delmer Foster, 



BARNABAS 



(131-160 Harnack) 



A* 



b 



I Pt. 1 ; 17 



TO sxao-xou spyov, sv cpopto trov 

 TYJ? Tcapoixia? 6[j<ojv y^powv ava • 

 (7i;pacpY]Te. 



Cf. also II Cor. 5 ; 10. 



(1) Bar. IV, 11 f. 



[xe>^eTw[j-£v TOV cpojBov toO d^zoU . . . 

 (12) 6 Kupto? a%po(7bi'KoXrt[x%TO)!; 

 xptvsT TOV x6(7[j-ov . sxao-TO? 

 xaO'w? i7ioiYi(7£v xopsiTat . siJcv V] 

 ayaO'OC, y] BixaiocruvT] auTou Trpo- 

 YiyvjcrsTai auTOu, eav vj 7uovY]p6i;, 6 

 [xiaO'O? T% 7covY]pta? sij-TCpocO-sv 

 auToO. 



Dr. Bartlet (N. T. in Apost. Fathers) thinks this affords no argu- 

 ment for Hterary dependence, either on II Corinthians or I Peter, 

 " though the hkenesses are striking in both cases." It is significant 

 however that u%^o<yomo'kri}XTz-o)<;, which is pecuhar to our Epistle, is 

 used just in the same connection as in I Peter. The " eav clauses " 

 on the other hand appear to be developed from " sits aya0-6v, sits 

 xaxov " of II Cor. 5 ; 10. Since I Pt. 1 ; 17 imphes all that is 

 included in the clauses, just alluded to, the probabiUties are yet 

 in favor of our Epistle. It is also important to note the employ- 

 ment in verse 11 of vao? teXsioc tm Bsw which corresponds to oTxo<; 

 TCV£tj[xaTi,x6i; of I Pt. 2 ; 5. Reference to " the last days " in verse 9 

 is also suggestive of I Pt. 1 ; 5, 20. 



(2) Bar. V, 5, 6, 7 I Pt. 1 ; 10 



7vo)5 o3v uTCSfXEivsv 6x6 ytip6<; ol^^- xspl ^? o-oj-rjpia; s^si^rjTrjO-av xal 



O-pwxwv xaO'sTv ; [xaQ-STS. 6. ot I'^YipsuvYjcrav xpocp9]Tat, ol xspl ty]? 



xpocpYJTai, otTU auToO lyovzzc, ty]v 



)(apiv, dc, (iuTov Ixpocpi^TEUo-av . 



auTO? Be tva xaT.rpyyjCTYi tov O-a- 



vaTov xai t7]v Iy. vsxpoiv oi.'^6i.(s-'x- 



aiv BeiI;?!, oti ev aapxi sBst auTov 



cpavsptoO'^vai, 6TC£[j-£tv£v. 7. I'va 



xai ToT? TiaTpaatv ty]v Ixa^'yE^iv 



dcTloBw. 



Dr. Bartlet rightly sees a twofold parallelism here with our— 

 Epistle ; " (1) prophecy foreshadows Christ's passion and its sequel, 

 and (2) this is due to grace proceeding from himself." Attention 

 should have been called also to the close parallel in the clause im- 



dc, ojxa^ )(apiTO? xpocpYiTstxravTSi; • 



(11) SpEUVWVTE^ sl? TlVa Y) TIOTOV 



xaipov zbrikou to sv auToT? Ilvsij- 

 [j.a Xpt,(7ToO, xpo[xapTup6[j-£vov toc 

 zlc, Xpio-Tov xa6'T^[j.aTa, xai tocc- 

 ^EToc TauTa Bo'^a?. 



